Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 12

NE 02 and States Carried by John McCain
This is fairly straightforward - the article's results box states that Obama carried 28 states, and DC, and NE-02. It also states that McCain carried 22 states. Obviously, if one were to add up the "states carried" for both candidates, such "states carried" should, when added together, equal 50 states, plus DC - but in this article's current form, they do not; the result is 50 states, plus DC, plus NE-02 (even though NE-02 is already included in Nebraska, which is included in the total of 50 states). This is so because John McCain did not in fact carry 22 states - he only carried 21, and some (most) of Nebraska. This article could and perhaps should be edited to state that McCain carried something like "21 - NE-02". Are there any objections to this? Penthamontar (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, because McCain did carry Nebraska. More specifically, he got more votes than Obama did in Nebraska, and he was awarded the two electoral votes that were given to the winner of the statewide vote (as well as the votes of the two congressional districts that he also won). Thus, Nebraska should included in his total as a "state won", which means his total should be 22. Noting that he lost NE-02 is redundant information, since the statement that Obama won that district (i.e., Obama's "states won" is 28 + DC + NE-02) clearly indicates that McCain lost it. Spiderboy12 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Spiderboy as well. Tim  meh  !  21:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why redundancy merits omission; if it did, it could be argued that we should omit any number for McCain at all. I now question whether DC or NE-02 should be included in "states carried"; neither is a state. Also, in my above post, I had meant to type "22 - NE-02", as opposed to "21 - NE-02". Penthamontar (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The field is meant to show the states/districts that a candidate carried, not what they didn't carry. Also, how is it redundant to show the number of states McCain won? Tim  meh  !  00:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is redundant because one could deduce McCain's number by subtracting Obama's from the total. As Spiderboy said,
 * ""Thus, Nebraska should included in his total as a "state won", which means his total should be 22. Noting that he lost NE-02 is redundant information, since the statement that Obama won that district (i.e., Obama's "states won" is 28 + DC + NE-02) clearly indicates that McCain lost it.""
 * By that statement, I argue that noting that McCain won 22 or whatever amount of states is redundant information, since the statement that Obama carried 28 + DC + NE-02 clearly indicates that McCain carried 22 - NE-02. Penthamontar (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is very different. Obama won NE-02, so it would be redundant to say McCain lost it. But Obama DID NOT win those 22 states, so it is not redundant to show that McCain won them because he did. Anyway, the purpose of the field is to show the states or districts won by each candidate, not those lost. Tim  meh  !  00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After consideration, I now agree with you that McCain's number is accurate, and thank you all for helping me to understand.
 * However, I still do not understand why DC or NE-02 is included in Obama's number. Timmeh, you stated that the purpose of the field is to show the states or districts won - but I do not understand why you include "districts" in that statement.  The field is labeled "states carried". Penthamontar (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. It is always better to have a civil discussion before making an edit than to edit war and cause problems. As for DC and NE-02, Washington D.C. and NE-02 are worth one electoral vote each. three and one electoral vote, respectively. They are essentially the same as a normal state in the Electoral College, except that they are NE-02 is worth less electoral votes. Tim  meh  !  01:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * D.C. has three electoral college votes. However, having electoral college votes does not make a district into a state. Penthamontar (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out that I don't object to the inclusion of D.C. or NE-02 in general, but feel that they should not be included when the field's title is "states carried". I suggest that "states carried" be replaced with something else, such as "electoral areas carried". Penthamontar (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be useful to add a * next to the list and note below that D.C. and NE-02 are not states. However, they are already wikilinks as it is, and a user not familiar with the United States and its elections could easily click those links and read that they are districts that are worth three (sorry) and one electoral vote, respectively. If you wish to add a note that doesn't clutter up the infobox, I would be fine with that. Tim  meh  !  12:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Swing States
Ok, I thought Swing States were ones that historically could go either way, meaning PA and NH should have been included Soxwon (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From the Wiki article: "A swing state (also, battleground state or purple state) in United States presidential politics is a state in which no candidate has overwhelming support, meaning that any of the major candidates have a reasonable chance of winning the state's electoral college votes." Near the end of the campaign, polls showed PA tightening, although the results contrasted it, and they showed Obama's lead in NH widening to double digits. I would classify PA as a swing state, but not NH. Tim  meh  !  02:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To add to that, Bush won Indiana by 20 points, but Indiana was still considered a swing state because of the close polls, and Obama eventually won it. A lot of states, like Georgia, were statistically very close, especially with the energized black population. -- Frightwolf (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

IPs running amok
We've got a couple of IPs 71.64.141.62 and 82.4.220.242 making multiple edits across these US prez election articles, these last few hours. Everyone keep an eye out for vandalism. Note: 71.64.141.62 has a history of vandalizing these articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Popular vote winner in bold?
I'm re-posting my comment here from Template:Infobox Election because it was getting no replies. Should popular vote winners' totals be in bold in the election infobox? There seems to be no real consistency among the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election articles. No earlier election articles have the popular vote winners' total and percentage in bold, but the 2000 article does, as well as the 2008 article. The 2004 article does not (when I posted the original comment). I can see the reasoning for putting the numbers in bold, as to show who won the popular vote and how it may differ from the winner in the Electoral College. However, since the popular vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, I would suggest the numbers not be in bold except when they have unusual usefulness as in the 2000 election. Tim meh  !  14:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Our election system doesn't recognize the popular vote to determine the winner and therefore it would give to much weight bolding them in the infobox. We have them (besides others) in bold in the more detailed tables further down the article and that should do it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Only the Electoral Vote winner, shoul be in bold. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The only number that makes a difference is the electoral college vote and that is the only one that should be bold. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the usefulness of having the popular vote total and percentage in bold in the 2000 article (and, perhaps, the articles for the elections elections of 1876 and 1888, in which articles the popular vote winner's totals are in bold), but it would seem inconsistent to me to only have the popular vote total and percentage in bold in such a small number of articles.
 * Also, states. If the popular vote total is not bold, then neither should the higher number of states carried be in bold, as that number does not determine the winner either.
 * The 1888 presidential election article's infobox is interesting - the higher electoral vote total is in bold, and the higher popular vote total and percentage are in bold, but the higher state total is not in bold. We should try to make the infoboxes from each election more consistent with each other. Penthamontar (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the best method would be to not have either the popular vote total/percentage or the number of states won in bold, unless the candidate who wins the election does not win the popular vote. Then the popular vote total and percentage should be in bold. It wouldn't cause too much inconsistency, as that has only happened three times. Tim  meh  !  23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Timmeh, when the winner does not carry the highest number of states, do you think that the loser's highest number of states be in bold, as in 1976? Penthamontar (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the number of states carried has any effect on the winner of the election. The popular vote does, as the popular vote winner in each state gets its electoral votes. In contrast, the number of states won really has no effect on the outcome of the election. You can win with as little as 11 states or lose while winning as many as 40 (including DC). Tim  meh  !  00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, I just think we shouldn't put "losers" in bold. No electoral vote --> no bold.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Presenting the states carried in bold is maybe not needed but ok with me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Ok. As for the electoral vote there is no question about it to leave it in bold as is. Right? Everything else is a matter of personal preference and since personal preferences shouldn't be a factor in an encyclopedia we could just leave the whole rest "un-bolded".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A candidate's number of states carried affects the outcome of the election because carrying states gives the candidate electoral votes, which are what ultimately matter.
 * The fact that a candidate could lose the election with 39 states and DC does not mean that the candidate's number of states carried does not matter. A candidate could lose the election with 75% of the popular vote, but that does not mean that the popular vote does not matter. Just the same, a candidate could lose the election while carrying more than 75% of the states, but that does not mean that the candidate's number of states carried does not matter.  Penthamontar (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Only leave the electoral vote of the winner in bold. Tim  meh  !  12:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See discussion for further info.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
This article has POV problems, amongst other areas of potential improvement (see my GA Review coments). On a well-publicised topic such as this, there is no need or justification for uncited facts and arguments. I've noticed a few recent edits that seem to parts of POV wars - these things can get worked out, if editors want to discuss them here on the talk page. But one of the simplest ways to start addressing them would be by not making edits that aren'e substantiated by reliable published sources. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Bush said Iraq caused 9-11
I removed the section reading:

because it had been proven that Iraq was not tied to Al-Qaeda and the September 11, 2001 attacks, which the Bush Administration had claimed was absolute fact for several years.

1. The statement about "proven that Iraq was not tied to Al-Qaeda" is false. There has never been such proof. There were ties, Zarqawi as well as the 9-11 Commission Report, p66 talking about low level meetings between the two. Therefore, the word "proven" is incorrect and should not be used. 2. The SPI source itself says, despite its misleading first few paragraphs, that Bush never explicitly said Iraq caused 9-11. The statement written in the article says it was.

Therefore, claiming that the two were not tied is simply incorrect as there were ties. They were not high level ties, and IMO, not worth going to war over, but there were ties. Furthermore, there is no statement given by the Administration, even the SPI admits this, saying that Iraq caused 9-11. What was said was Al-Qaeda caused 9-11 and Iraq and Al-Qaeda have ties. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is misleading - the Bush Administration repeatedly tried to tie 9/11 response as appropriately being directed against Iraq. It's one reason why the American people continued to believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11, even after the Administration admitted they didn't have any evidence of that. They definitely implied Iraq was heavily involved in the attacks.  This will have to be changed again, perhaps to accommodate some of your concerns, but not to deny the Bush Administration position.--Parkwells (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is your interpretation, not the fact itself. In all honesty, I never got that impression they were trying to claim Iraq caused 9-11. I always saw it as "Al Qaeda caused 9-11 (true), Iraq has WMD(they claimed to be true), Iraq has some ties to Al Qaeda (true), therefore Iraq should be stopped before the weapons are handed off". Of course distracted people may misinterpret this. Now you may allege that was their intention from the get go, but that again is speculation. We have to be precise in our facts...Bush, nor anyone from his administration, ever specifically said Iraq caused 9-11. Saying so is absolutely false. You may hate Bush and that's understandable, but let's be sure to represent the facts that we can prove correctly. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I didn't want to allege any bias on your part with my last statement of hating Bush. If it came off that way I apologize. I just want the truth out, whether I like the truth or not. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the disputed section did reflect what is stated in the sources, I did change the wording so it would more strongly reflect the source. Also, you should not remove sourced statements when there is some possibility the text reflects what is stated in the source. Hopefully, the current version is acceptable. Tim  meh  !  21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a better good faith attempt and thank you. I will try myself to make it better. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was my version changed? There was no reason given, and yours introduces several grammatical and spelling errors. My version adequately reflected what was stated in the sources, and it was shorter and more to-the-point. Tim  meh  !  14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bush Administration never "claimed as absolute fact" any of that. The source itself even says that later on in the article. Wording it as "claiming absolute fact" gives the impression that this was the undisputed, sworn statement and affirmation of the Administration. That's not the case. The SPI, a very anti-Bush paper, even said it in its piece. I apologize about the grammatical and spelling errors, was rushed and trying to get it done fast. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bush administration sold it as a fact (but that would be my OR at this point since I didn't checked the provided source... yet). Phrasing it as "...claimed as absolute fact..." would need a strong source since "absolute" means no doubt whatsoever.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, the sentence only needs a minor rewrite (to reflect the source(s?)) and shouldn't just be blanked.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see what was wrong with the layout of the sentence before it was changed, and the way it is now, it doesn't look right. Tim  meh  !  20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph as it stands right now is indeed a little bit too vague. I would like to see a compromise that doesn't use words like "absolute" as I pointed out above. That's all.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here looks as the confusion of what a factual statement is and an implication. A factual statement is what it is. An implication is one about interpretation. Implied could be a better word, but I would be against it as it invites subjectivity...implied according to whom? 96.250.227.76 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bush Admin didn't imply anything about Iraq or Al-Qaeda. He stated that there were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda (and possibly 9/11), and he put it forward as fact. The 9/11 commission's findings were "at odds" with Bush's claims according to the cited article. Tim  meh  !  20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph seems fine as written now. The article itself states that nobody in the Bush Administration ever specifically stated Iraq caused 9-11. The Commission did specifically state ties on pp66-67 of the report. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008 timeline peer review
Hi. I've recently been working on bringing United States presidential election, 2008 timeline to featured list standard. It's currently undergoing peer review, with remarkably muted results. Presumably if you're reading this talk page you have at least a passing interest in the subject, so it'd be greatly appreciated if you could help me out by responding with whatever you think's wrong with the timeline. Thanks — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Democratic ticket with two Northerners?
This private, unsourced POV was reverted. It is not up to editors to individually decide in what region states are classified. The US Census Bureau puts Delaware in the South, probably because it was part of the Chesapeake Bay Colony, tobacco-producing and a slave state. It is POV to claim it is a northern state - use inline citations if you are sourcing from valid third-party source. I didn't see any commentary that described this as a Democratic ticket of two Northerners.--Parkwells (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect State Popular Vote Data
The info in the tables in both the Grand Total section and the Results by State section did not match the official FEC results. I took the time to correct the table in the Grand Total section, but am running out and don't have time to find the mistakes and correct the state-by-state table in the Results by State section.

Here are the official FEC results:

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf

70.91.104.249 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible GA?
This article was recently reviewed for GA, but it failed because nobody took action on the specific problems that the reviewer said needed to be addressed. It seems some of them have been addressed, but many are still left. I'd like to get this to GA soon, so if any editors could lend some time to this to help fix the issues, I'd be really grateful. Here are the problems that haven't yet been addressed (the following is copied from hamiltonstone's analysis, with addressed concerns omitted):

Article issues

 * Nominations
 * This section needs to begin with some text setting the scene for the emergence of nominees from each party. There must be a huge number of articles from the period 2006-early 2008 that speculated upon and analysed this process. Just a few sentences summarising the sort of discussion and analysis would be adequate. The material in the subsection "Before the primaries" relates to this, but it is patchy, and jumps from generalities in its first para, to some fund raising details in the second.
 * The previous point is highlighted by the candidates' gallery which is just plonked in without any sense of who these people were or how they came to be candidates.
 * The "Early primaries/caucuses" section must begin by mentioning which these were, and is deficient in regards to references. Those of us outside the USA have little idea about the sequence of these events. The comment that "Iowa is viewed as the state that jump-started Obama's campaign..." is a major analytical claim and must be sources.
 * Now that some time has passed, I am not sure whether it really matters that much what pollsters predicted versus what Clinton actually got in New Hampshire, but if it does, it needs a citation.


 * Super Tuesday subsection (Democrat)
 * The first para should be about Super Tuesday in general (a version of the current second para) - alternatively, there should be a general discussion of the sequence of primaries, and the special significance of Super Tuesday, in the intro to nominations, before we get into the Democratic nom process. I would prefer the latter, but other editors may have different views.
 * The whole section on the Democrat primary race lacks any substantive mention of the candidates other than Obama and Clinton. Edwards rates a mention, but there is no account of the process by which any other candidate either competed or why they were eliminated.
 * It may reflect the reality of the politics, but it seems strange that there is no mention of actual policy differences between the candidates during the primary phase. I also recall a lot of talk (and not a few campaign boilovers) about the 'experience' issue, how each one would handle the foreign policy demands, what Clinton's connections with her husband meant for her role in the job etc. If the primaries are going to rate so many paras as they do, then there needs to be some recognition of these matters.


 * Republican nomination
 * This at least has the makings of an intro to the nomination in general, though there is less detail on the actual primaries. Same comments as for Democrats apply re how these people came to be the candidates, and on any policy substance. The Republican section is better o how candidates came to drop out in the course of the contest.


 * Before the primaries (Republican)
 * In the context of analysing the election campaign, it is of no consequence how much Rep. Paul managed to raise in a day, even if it was a record. That info should just be on his bio page I think.
 * What this section should have is material on who was in the running and why, and what the general view was about prospects.
 * There should be something on reasons for Romney and Giuliani dropping out - my recollection is that they were seen as serious contenders who dipped out early.


 * Interpretive maps
 * These should be broken up and have substantive text using them to illustrate important points about the results. What did commentators say about urban / rural, north east / midwest / whatever splits etc etc. I think the cartogram and voter shift maps could be attached to some particularly interesting analysis.
 * The voter demographics table is very disruptive to the article. Unless the data within it is being used to support the substantive analytical text, editors might want to debate omitting it.

Books that could be cited
The article still does not cite any books. At least some of these should be cited for GA

Books containing material by the candidates themselves

 * Barack Obama Vs. John McCain, (voting records of the two candidates), Arc Manor, 2008
 * Change We Can Believe in, by Barack Obama, Three Rivers, 2008
 * The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, by Barack Obama, Three Rivers, 2006
 * Faith of my Fathers, by John McCain, Random House, 1999

Books by third parties

 * The Case Against Barack Obama, by David Freddoso, Regnery, 2008
 *  Third Term: Why George W. Bush (Loves) John McCain, by Paul Begala, Simon & Schuster, 2008
 * A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win, by Shelby Steele, Free Press, 2007
 * McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, by Matt Welch, Palgrave Macmillan
 * The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him—and Why Independents Shouldn't, by Cliff Schecter, PoliPoint
 * Free Ride: John McCain and the Media, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, Anchor
 * "A LONG TIME COMING": The Inspiring, Combative 2008 Campaign and the Historic Election of Barack Obama, By Evan Thomas, PublicAffairs.
 * The Plan: Big Ideas for Change in America, By Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed, PublicAffairs
 * Obama's Challenge: America’s Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, By Robert Kuttner, Chelsea Green Publishing
 * How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election, by Chuck Todd, Sheldon Gawiser,  Ana Maria Arumi,  G. Evans Witt

Hopefully someone can assist me in resolving these issues and nominating this for GA soon. Thanks. Tim meh  !  02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions about data and tables in this (and similar) articles
I had the following interchange with an editor re this article, and I thought it raised some useful points about some tables, and issues other editors have had with them, so I am copying it here (from my talk page).:
 * But, could you answer me two questions, please?
 * 1.) Why is it important to know the closest states, and the biggest majorities however not?
 * 2.) Why are there the closest states listed, although there is already a "massive table", which doesn't include any percents, by the way?
 * 3.) Why did FOX and CNN show the best results on election night? Why did we have to grade the results at school and university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.108.65 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points. I'll respond here, and flag at your talk page.
 * I am actually in favour of not having separate tables for either closest states or biggest majorities, if there is a main table of results (particulary, as in the 2008 article, where there is also a range of interpretive maps available as well). However, your observation about the lack of percentages in the main table is a good one. My preferred solution, in terms of space, would be to include those percentages in the main table, do away with the separate little tables altogether, and then add some commentary in the analysis section.
 * Other users have raised some valid points making judgements about what is notable data worth including. Arguably, in an electoral college or first-past-the-post voting system, biggest majorities are not particularly important. My view is that they should be mentioned only if reliable source references draw attention to them, for example by way of underlining the geography or demography of a candidate's support base. Which brings me another point:
 * A range of the material included in this and other election result articles lacks citations for the source(s) of the results data. This has recently turned out to be an issue in one case where an editor has indicated that the numbers in different sources are not the same. I would be happier with a lot of the material in Presidential electoin 2008 and others if the tables etc were footnoted so we knew where the data came from. I woudl continue to have an issue with this, for example, if I were to be conducting a GA Review again for one of these sorts of articles.
 * I'm afraid I didn't understand your last point about FOX and CNN etc. I don't know where people are getting some of the figures for the article (see my previous point), but they should be being sourced, if at all possible, straight from publications of the authority(ies) administering the election.
 * Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Imagemap
I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but I'm curious to know if there's any way to include the above imagemap in this article, specifically in the infobox. It's simply USA imagemap with state names with the links changed from the state articles to the 'United States presidential election in x, 2008' articles. The only problem is when the imagemap is pasted into the infobox, the text  appear respectively above and below the image, which is pretty undesirable. Is there any way to correct this, either here or in Infobox Election, and, if so, any reason that this shouldn't replace the current ElectoralCollege2008.svg? Thanks, — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fooled around with the code a bit, both on this page and at Infobox Election, but I'm not very good with this kind of stuff. I think a change would need to be made at Infobox Election, but I am completely unfamiliar with this type of code. You could try learning a bit about template syntax and attempt to add in a condition for putting in an image map. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 01:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I think I took a look at the template code and got a headache, then promptly forgot all about this. I don't think I'm anywhere near smart (or brave) enough to try and fiddle with the template syntax myself, so I'll ask at the talk page. If it were possible to include it, would you support doing so? — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I can't see any reason not to include it, and it would provide very useful links. Tim  meh  03:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent and extremely useful map. I fully support its integration into the main article. Panos75 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A resounding yes! Especially helpful are the links to individual states.--JayJasper (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)